The Validity of the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale in an Inpatient Sample with Alcohol Dependence

Hobden, Breanne; Schwandt, Melanie L.; Carey, Mariko; Lee, Mary R.; Farokhnia, Mehdi; Bouhlal, Sofia; Oldmeadow, Christopher; Leggio, Lorenzo

doi:10.1111/acer.13400

Cited by 13 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, participants received patient care, medical attention and medications (benzodiazepines, in some cases). Notably, similar temporal differences are commonly reported in studies of this type [45], including a previous study by our laboratory aimed at examining the predictive value of the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS; another subscale of the CPRS) in detecting a SCID diagnosis of a depressive disorder [46]. Furthermore, with the purpose of accumulating the largest sample size possible, subjects who were administered either the SCID-IV-TR or the SCID-5-RV were included in the sample, and there are differences between assessments in disorder criteria, language and modules [10,47].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

The validity of the state–trait anxiety inventory and the brief scale for anxiety in an inpatient sample with alcohol use disorder

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aims The Brief Scale for Anxiety (BSA) and the State–Trait Anxiety Inventory Form Y‐2 (STAI‐Y‐2) are self‐report scales used to gauge anxiety symptoms in clinical settings. Co‐occuring anxiety is common in alcohol use disorder (AUD); however, no studies have assessed the validity of the BSA and STAI‐Y‐2 compared with a clinical diagnostic tool of anxiety in alcohol treatment programs. We aimed to examine the validity of the BSA and STAI‐Y‐2 to predict a clinical diagnosis of an anxiety disorder (via the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM [SCID]) in AUD patients. Design Participants were administered the BSA (n = 1005) on day 2 and the STAI‐Y‐2 (n = 483) between days 2 and 10 of the detoxification program. SCID‐based clinical diagnoses of AUD and anxiety were made approximately on day 10. Setting and participants Individuals seeking treatment for AUD admitted to an inpatient unit at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center in Bethesda, MD, USA (n = 1010). Measurements Inclusion criteria included a current diagnosis of alcohol dependence (AD) according to DSM‐IV‐TR or moderate to severe AUD according to DSM‐5‐RV, as well as available baseline BSA and/or STAI Y‐2 data. Empirical receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated using estimates of sensitivity, 1‐specificity and positive and negative predictive values for each cut‐point to determine the accuracy of scale outcomes in relation to SCID diagnoses. Findings The BSA demonstrated low accuracy relative to a clinical diagnosis of anxiety with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.67 at the optimal cut‐point of ≥ 10. The STAI‐Y‐2 had moderate accuracy relative to a clinical diagnosis of anxiety with an AUC of 0.70 at the optimal cut‐point of ≥ 51. The accuracy of the STAI‐Y‐2 increased (AUC = 0.74) when excluding post‐traumatic stress disorder and obsessive–compulsive disorder from anxiety disorder classification. Conclusions Use of the Brief Scale for Anxiety (BSA) and/or State–Trait Anxiety Inventory Form Y‐2 (STAI‐Y‐2) does not appear to be a reliable substitute for clinical diagnoses of anxiety disorder among inpatients with alcohol use disorder. The BSA and STAI‐Y‐2 could serve as a screening tool to reject the presence of anxiety disorders rather than for detecting an anxiety disorder.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

The validity of the state–trait anxiety inventory and the brief scale for anxiety in an inpatient sample with alcohol use disorder

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For this method, the optimal cut-off value is determined using the basic principle that the AUC value should be large. Therefore, the distance between the coordinates (0, 1) and the ROC curve should be minimized [25,26]. The Euclidean distance is calculated as follows: The point at which this value is minimized is considered the optimal cut-off value.…”

Section: Euclidean Distancementioning

confidence: 99%

Receiver operating characteristic curve: overview and practical use for clinicians

Nahm

2022

Korean J Anesthesiol

608

208

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using diagnostic testing to determine the presence or absence of a disease is essential in clinical practice. In many cases, test results are obtained as continuous values and require a process of conversion and interpretation and into a dichotomous form to determine the presence of a disease. The primary method used for this process is the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The ROC curve is used to assess the overall diagnostic performance of a test and to compare the performance of two or more diagnostic tests. It is also used to select an optimal cut-off value for determining the presence or absence of a disease. Although clinicians who do not have expertise in statistics do not need to understand both the complex mathematical equation and the analytic process of ROC curves, understanding the core concepts of the ROC curve analysis is a prerequisite for the proper use and interpretation of the ROC curve. This review describes the basic concepts for the correct use and interpretation of the ROC curve, including parametric/nonparametric ROC curves, the meaning of the area under the ROC curve (AUC), the partial AUC, methods for selecting the best cut-off value, and the statistical software to use for ROC curve analyses.

show abstract

“…Higher scores indicate greater urges to gamble. The Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale [ 33 , 34 ] MADRS Diagnostic instrument used to assess depression symptoms (sadness, inner tension, less sleep and appetite, concentration difficulty, lassitude, inability to feel, pessimistic and suicidal thoughts) in patients with mood affective disorders. 10 items rated on a scale 0 (not at all) to 6 (extremely).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-pharmacological treatment of gambling disorder: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The main focus of the non-pharmacological treatment of Gambling Disorder (GD) is the behaviour, cognition and motivation of the patient, addressing the psychological determinants of gambling. Although there is not a gold standard non-pharmacological treatment yet, many studies already had promising results, and the outcomes were even better when pharmacotherapies were combined with psychotherapies. This review intended to synthesise the efficacy of various available non-pharmacological therapies for GD evaluated in randomized controlled trials. Methods A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and in Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials. Studies were included if participants had GD as their primary diagnosis and excluded if patients had other comorbidities. Results From 320 records identified, 22 studies were included in the critical appraisal. They included a total of 1694 patients, with a mean age of 42.94 years, and a 62.31% of males. Seven trials revealed the efficacy of cognitive behaviour therapy in improving significantly the outcomes. Three studies assessing cognitive therapy showed significant improvements in gambling symptoms, while one study showed improvements in gambling behaviour using exposure therapy. Combined or separate motivational interviewing and imaginal desensitization had significant results in 4 trials. Four other studies also showed efficacy for: couples therapy, node-link mapping therapy, 12-step facilitated and personalized feedback intervention. Physical exercise had promising results but did not reach significance. Conclusion The literature included in this review showed the heterogeneity of available psychotherapies. The majority of studies supported the efficacy of the tested therapies, while some of them, due to limitations such as small sample sizes or inadequate control groups, failed to reach significance.

show abstract

The Validity of the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale in an Inpatient Sample with Alcohol Dependence

Cited by 13 publications

References 34 publications

The validity of the state–trait anxiety inventory and the brief scale for anxiety in an inpatient sample with alcohol use disorder

The validity of the state–trait anxiety inventory and the brief scale for anxiety in an inpatient sample with alcohol use disorder

Receiver operating characteristic curve: overview and practical use for clinicians

Non-pharmacological treatment of gambling disorder: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About